Rodya24 said:

i've seen studies where they measure arosual in people as watch various forms of pornography and erotic photos.

females whether lesbian straight bi whatever tended to be aroused no matter what they were shown, however straight men for the most part were only aroused during straight and lesbian porn and gay men only aroused during gay porn.

I don't want to see anyone on here complaining about there being too many MJ threads on this board. Y'all love it!

ehuffnsd said:

Those are the only two options to label Mike with. One or the other.

Oh and you're totally right about female sexuality being more fluid than men's. The amount of heterosexual women who have "gone gay" for periods in their lives is staggering.

lilgish said:

The problem is you can't anything remotely considered a Michael Jackson discussion in any degree without the zealots coming out of the woodwork.

whatsgoingon said:

I agree. This was before Michael Jackson was associated with all the wackiness and pretense that came in the late 1980s to mid-1990s. He was for the most part an introverted, shy, awkward teen-ager during this dating period in the 1970s.
[Edited 9/3/07 8:57am]

ehuffnsd said:

Again I disagree. Then again we are talking about sexuality as if it is a concrete concept.... Let us agree to disagree. I feel uncomfortable differentiating between female and male sexualities since both are social constructions.

Rodya24 said:

gender is more of social construct than sexuality. i've met several FTM's in who when they were female were attracted to women, but after they started hormone therapy they switched to being attracted to males.

sexuality for the most part i believe just is, and our society we live in dictates how we view it.

midnightmover said:

But how do you explain the staggering amount of adult heterosexual porn found in his home. The prosecution was hoping to paint him as a homosexual...but the stash of adult heterosexual porn backfired on them. And the fact that unlike Tom Cruise (at least to my knowledge) no male adult individuals have come forth claiming to be his lover..... Then again, there might have been, and I am not familiar with them. I do not read the tabloids.

Rodya24 said:

i know gay guys that love straight porn

whatsgoingon said:

So because it was mentioned at the time that they were friends, that means they must have been lovers? You're gonna have to explain your logic there because I must admit it's completely lost on me.

Also I'm afraid I have to issue you a painful wake up call on another area where you're confused. You say that the Mike of 88 wouldn't go near a black woman, but the Mike of 78 would. Here is where you still haven't realised that the perception you had of Mike back in 1978 was wrong. You're still confusing the image you had in your head with the reality of the time. Mike didn't suddenly turn blackaphobic in the 80s. All that happened was you started to see the outward signs in the 80s, but nothing comes from nothing. Michael's fondness for children for instance was unknown at the time, but we know he already loved kids back in the late 70s. But the public didn't find out until the mid 80s. You're still under the illusion that because these things weren't known at the time that they can't have been in his head. Totally illogical. The fact that you're doing this shows that you are desperate to cling to the fantasy of Michael you had in your youth. You don't want to face the fact that he never was what you thought he was.
[Edited 9/3/07 9:00am]

The hilarious thing is that along with these so-called zealots, most of the time, the same individuals come to these threads.

Rodya24 said:

That's also including the people who took this from a thread discussing Michael Jackson and Stephanie Mills dating briefly in the mid-1970s into some exhausting discussion into the sociological, pshychological and biological aspects of sexuality.

ehuffnsd said:

I disagree. "SEXUALITY" and how we view it and experience it is as much of a social construct as "GENDER" and "SEX."

ehuffnsd said:

True. But I am throwing this fact out there. Why no homosexual porn? Why no one who has claimed to be his lover? And no, I am not one of those individuals who think FOR SURE that he is heterosexual. I think he is bisexual like the rest of us.

Najee said:

Me and ehuffnsd!

Rodya24 said:

Sex such as male and female are natural most indiviuals unless intersex live as one or the other therefore it's natural. Gender and gender roles are a social contruct.

homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual are the attractions you are born with and once again natural. how you chose to manifest these whether living as part of the mainstream or part of gay cultral and society is a social construct.

our experiences are both genetic and social though most people don't see that way.

Rodya24 said:

that's where the thoughts that maybe he's asexual comes into play.

the paper i work for just recently did a great feature on asexuality.

http://www.gaylesbiantime...issue=1024

ehuffnsd said:

I disagree. SEX is a social construct as GENDER. You and I are not NATURALLY "STRAIGHT" or "GAY" or "BISEXUAL." Moreover, how we paint science as a "natural" phenomenon and thus more "true" is a construct as well.

Rodya24 said:

you are right i was not born gay, i was born homosexual. i've always been attracted to other men. i didn't choose to be that way it just the way i was programmed.

however i did choose to live in the social contrust of being gay.

i could have chosen to get married to a woman have kids and affairs on the side and ruin her life, the kids life, and mine.

or i could have chosen to live a dual life of saying i was straight and having a gay sex life i didn't tell anyone about.

i think we are born with attractions and it's our society that shows how to deal with it. just like we are born with our sex and society tells what our gender is.

I can face facts more than you. I never said they were lovers, but they were close enough to be a little romantic. I don't see why you would find it hard to believe what Stephanie said. She didn't say they had sex, she didn't even say they had a long, torrid affair. She said they kiss and were close enough for her to see him in his underwear because she use to help him with the laundry. These are her words which you find it difficult to accept because she is "black".

no matter what his insecurities were, he still looked very black, gee he even still had his fro and his original nose. So I don't see why him dating a black woman at that particular time would have been such a big deal.

And you know back in 1978 the child he was closest to was his sister, Janet. It was even noted that she accompanied him to all his interviews and was like his little shadow. The only reason why people don't really analyze this relationship was because she's his sister and she is a girl. I am sure Janet was a boy we would probably be over-analysing that relationship too and be wondering whether it was just a normal, sibling relationship or something more sinister.

ehuffnsd said:

I am not challenging your experience, because a number of others have had the same experience.

But I believe that sexuality is fluid, and like you said, choices and how and why we make those choices (often dictated by social norms and expectations) have much to do with our sexual preferences and lives. I struggle with the common belief that we are born to prefer a certain lifestyle, that we are "naturally" a certain "sexuality."

ehuffnsd said:

True. But I am throwing this fact out there. Why no homosexual porn? Why no one who has claimed to be his lover? And no, I am not one of those individuals who think FOR SURE that he is heterosexual. I think he is bisexual like the rest of us.

Rodya24 said:

i know gay guys that love straight porn

Rodya24 said:

you are right i was not born gay, i was born homosexual. i've always been attracted to other men. i didn't choose to be that way it just the way i was programmed.
however i did choose to live in the social contrust of being gay.

ehuffnsd said:

Some of you behave as though you want him to be gay! What if he's not gay, would that be such a disappointment? Jeez!

ehuffnsd said:

Exactly. There was nothing in your environment to turn you gay. You were just programmed that way. I should point out that gender is NOT just a social construct either. That is political correctness gone mad. Biology programs women to be childbearers, and along with that comes a whole load of traits and characteristics which have nothing to do with social programming. But as I type this sentence I can already see that we are going WAAYY off topic.

whatsgoingon said:

I have no doubt about the little details about the laundry, etc, but she is making it out to be more than it was. She's trying to have her cake and eat it too. Encouraging people to think she was his girlfriend, but not wanting to lie too much at the same time, hence her slipperiness, which I'm sure you didn't even notice.


You're showing the same deliberate blindness again. He still looked black because he hadn't got round to the surgeries yet. He was only 19, but it was only a year or two later that he first started moving in the white direction so to think that he wasn't already thinking that way is naive. Like I said, nothing comes from nothing. Logic tells you that those thoughts must have already been in his head, but you don't want to see that because it would mean facing the fact that the Michael you loved at the time wasn't what you thought he was.


You're now resorting to the classic sign of someone who is on the back foot. You're making completely irrelevant points to try and confuse the issue. What the hell has Janet got to do with this?

midnightmover said:

yes there are certain natural traits to women and men because of their biology but there are things like gender norms which are purely the work of culture and society.
[Edited 9/3/07 9:48am]